The strange Greco-Italian war decided by Mussolini

I have already talked about Greece in the previous article. We are going to see more details about this affair.

So, the 28th of October 1940, Mussolini suddenly declared war on Greece. 560.000 Italians faced 300.000 Greeks. Then, not only Greeks weren't defeated, but they even counter-attacked. In December, they had been able to advance of nearly 50 km in the Albanian territory. The 9th of March, Mussolini launched a second offensive, which didn't work either. After one week and 12.000 soldiers killed, he decided to stop the offensive and to let Hitler resolve the problem. For days after, his army left Albania. Thus, Hitler was forced to intervene in order to avoid a serious defeat for his ally. Germany invaded Greece the 6th of April, and Greece lost the 28th of April.

There are several logical problems with this affair.

1. It's not the strangest of all the discrepancies, but why did Mussolini attack Greece? The argument that Mussolini was jealous of Hitler is quite ridiculous. Maybe the one that he wanted to remake a Roman empire is a little bit believable. But the Greek government was a dictatorship. Metaxas was anticommunist. His ideas were close of those of Mussolini. He should have been an ally instead of an enemy. It's a little bit like if Mussolini had attacked Spain.
2. Why did Mussolini attack at this moment (October 28 1940)? The timing of the attack was bizarre. At this very moment, things didn't go very well in North Africa: the 150.000 soldiers of the 10th army weren't able to attack the 36.000 British soldiers. Ok, the attack hadn't already taken place. But the Generals of Mussolini were warning him that the armies of North Africa weren't ready for an attack. And as Mussolini didn't know what would happen in North Africa, he should have been cautious and wait before attacking Greece. He should have waited until the battle of North Africa was finished, and attack Greece after that. Autumn and winter were also not especially the best seasons to make an attack. It is said that it's because the season was inappropriate for an attack that Hitler didn't attack Greece right away.
3. How could they lose, and so quickly? They were vastly superior concerning the number of soldiers (there were 560.000 Italians against 300.000 Greeks, so, almost 2 against 1). And, as Italy was much bigger and richer than Greece (44 million people against 7), they were much better equipped than Greeks. According to Wikipedia, they had 163 tanks when Greece had only 20, 463 aircrafts (Greece 77). Thus, they shouldn't have lost so quickly.
4. What did England do there? When they began to send troops (the sending was finally decided the 22nd of February, and the first troops were sent the 6th of March 1941), they knew Germany was on the verge of participating to the invasion (they invaded Greece the 6th of April 1941). So, they were absolutely sure to lose. And, at the same time, they were almost sure to win in North Africa. So, why mobilize 58.000 soldiers in Greece where they were sure of losing instead of sending them in North Africa, where they were sure to win? British also took troops of North Africa to send them in Greece. This is why the attack against Italians in North Africa was stopped the 7th of February 1941. Germany began sending troops in North Africa the 11th of February (via Tripoli). But there were enough of them only at the beginning of March. So, during one month, England could have obliterated the Italian forces and pushed until Tripoli (in 15 days, between the 22nd of January and the 7th of February, they had progressed 400 km). It is also said that sending British troops in Greece was not accepted by Greek government at the beginning because there was a high risk that it would lead Hitler to attack Greece. And indeed, the intervention of England in Greece was one of the reasons he did it.

When you understand that Hitler was a Jewish shill and that World War II was staged, all those discrepancies can be explained.

War in Greece was once again staged. It had three goals:

1) to cause a delay concerning the war against Russia. Delay which would explain partially why Hitler didn't win in 1941.

2) to justify that British troops were stopped when they were on the verge of throwing Italian forces out of North Africa.

3) to give another reason to explain why Hitler still didn't try to send troops in North Africa (the explanation was he was too busy preparing and managing the assault against Greece, and after that, Russia)

With this in mind, you can understand the reason of the several discrepancies.

Mussolini didn't attack Greece because he was jealous of Hitler, or because he wanted to make a new Roman Empire. He was a jew as Hitler, and of course a part of the plan of Jewish leaders. As Hitler, he wasn't for real. So, if he attacked Greece, this because of the three goals listed before.

He did it at this moment (28th of October 1940) because in the Jewish leaders plan, Italy had to be severely defeated in North Africa in December. Thus, if the war against Greece had begun in January 1941, it would have been much more difficult to justify. People would have wondered why Mussolini had started this war when his troops were being crushed by British forces in North Africa. So, even if the war in North Africa did not go well, he had to launch the attack against Greece, otherwise, the discrepancy of attacking it would have been much bigger. There was already incoherence, since there was already a second front where things were not happening very well, but if he hadn't attacked at this moment, the incoherence would have been huge.

Even if it leaded to a very fishy event, Mussolini had to lose (or at least to be stopped) against Greek armies because otherwise Germany wouldn't have got any reason to intervene. Thus, Germany wouldn't have been late regarding operation Barbarossa. England also wouldn't have got enough time to send troops in Greece. Thus, it would have been more difficult to explain why they didn't expelled Italian armies from North Africa.

Thus, if England sent troops in Greece, whereas they were sure to lose against Germans forces and sure to win in North Africa, it's because they precisely had to stop winning in North Africa. If they hadn't stopped their attack because they had to send troops from North Africa to Greece, they would have won in North Africa. And if they had sent the 58.000 soldiers stationed in Greece in North Africa, they would have won even more easily.

And this wasn't at all in the plan of Jewish leaders, because otherwise, Hitler would have been obliged to postpone his attack against Russia in order to get rid of the British threat in North Africa. Then, he would have got all the time needed to beat the British forces (and it would have taken time to be able to possess North Africa again). So, not only North Africa would have been lost, but the Mediterranean Sea also. May be England. The whole war would have lasted much more time. And finally, Hitler could have been able to attack Russia at the right time (I mean, without being late), with new weapons (tanks), with a better preparation, without having to fight on other fronts, and with unlimited supplies of oil. Then the defeat against Russia would have been very difficult to explain.

Of course, you could answer: "What if Germany had sent troops sooner in North Africa"? Then the invasion of Greece wouldn't have been necessary for England, since the danger of having Italian forces expelled from North Africa wouldn't have been a problem anymore. The problem is all happened very quickly in North Africa between Italy and England. The battle lasted between the 8th of December 1940 and the 7th of February, only two months. And Germany needed a little bit of time to send troops in North Africa: at least one month. Thus, Hitler couldn't send his troops at the beginning of January, since it would have meant that he knew at the beginning of December that Italy would lose the battle, which was impossible. Thus, he could only begin to send them at the beginning of February, because in January, he knew that Italy would probably lose. But, it had to take at least two months to have enough troops to be able to attack. Thus, the problem of having Italian forces being expelled from North Africa before the coming of enough German troops remained. And it could be resolved only by sending enough British soldiers from North Africa to Greece, which would allow justifying the stop of the attack.

There was another reason for sending British troops in Greece. As we have seen it at the beginning of the text, the presence of 58.000 British soldiers pushed Hitler to invade Greece. Probably that without this, the German invasion would have seemed a little bit strange. Hitler could have use diplomacy to make Italy and Greece have an arrangement. In fact, this is what happened at the beginning. And even without an arrangement, there were no huge risks of Greece trying to push farer than Albania and invade Italy. So, Greece was not really a threat for Germany, and neither for Italy. Thus, without the British troops, no war from Hitler on Greece.

There is something else which would have made Hitler to have no reason of invading Greece. In fact, Hitler didn't plan to use Italian troops during the invasion of Russia. Mussolini decided to send soldiers once he knew about Barbarossa. But Hitler informed him about the operation just one day before it. Obviously, Italy wasn't a part of this operation. Italy could have continued its war against Greece, it would have made no difference for Hitler regarding his own war against Russia. So, without the presence of British troops in Greece (and without Churchill trying to make alliances with some Balkan countries), Hitler would have got no reason to invade Greece. He could have said: "well, continue your stupid war against Greece, I am going to invade Russia with my other allies". Whereas, with British troops present in Greece, it was completely different. Hitler had to invade Greece in order to get rid of this threat.

PS: Metaxas, the Greek dictator, was also strange. This guy was supposed to have more or less the same ideas than Mussolini or Franco. He supposedly was a Germanophile. Germany was Greece's largest trading partner. Thus, he should have been on the side of the Axis. But no, he was more on the side of England; he had offered the British military bases on Crete island as early as 1939; and to cap it, he had summoned the Greek shipowners to put their ships at the disposal of the British Government. Historians say it's because he feared an Italian invasion. But, then, an alliance with the Axis would have prevented this threat from happening. It would have been clearly the best way of being safe. Whereas being friendly with Britain and having British troops on his ground was the best way of being invaded by Italy or Germany. So, nothing makes sense. But if he was a jew, his behavior is not strange anymore. He couldn't make an alliance with the Axis, because, otherwise, the Greco-Italian war couldn't have happened. And Jewish leaders wanted it to happen.

We can also think that his death (January 29 1941, just 3 months after the beginning of the war) was staged or was phony. With Metaxas the Germanophile dictator dead, there couldn't be any diplomatic issue to the Greco-Italian war.

But why a Germanophile dictator? Why didn't Jewish leaders use a democratic state? It would have been easier to justify the invasion. But, with Metaxas being a Germanophile dictator, it was easier to justify that Mussolini didn't warn Hitler he would soon invade Greece; and thus, invaded it alone. If Mussolini had warned Hitler of what he was going to do, the latter would have persuaded him to not do it. With a democracy, there would have been no reason to keep Hitler out of the process (or at least, much less reasons). And Hitler would even have helped Mussolini until the beginning. Thus Greece would have been defeated long before the end of April 1941. Of course, it wasn't impossible to have the same scenario (Mussolini attacking without warning Hitler) with a democracy; but it was easier with a dictatorship.